Views
Navigating Global Jurisdiction: The Indian Courts’ Approach to Online IP Infringement
Written by Akanksha Oak, Jindal Global Law School, India
Introduction
The modern commerce landscape faces a significant challenge: the widespread infringement of intellectual property (“IP”) rights due to online interactions that enable instant global access. This issue is exacerbated by cross-border activities, necessitating the application of private international law (“PIL”). However, IP protection remains territorial, guided by the principle of “lex loci protectionis.” This results in complexities when it intersects with PIL. Online IP infringement further convolutes matters due to the internet’s omnipresence and accessibility, making the establishment of jurisdiction a complicated process for legal professionals. A pivotal development in this arena occurred in 2021 when the Delhi High Court rendered a judgement in the case of HK Media Limited and Anr v. Brainlink International Inc.,[1] illuminating India’s legal framework for determining jurisdiction in cases of online IP infringement within the context of cross-border disputes.
The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention Applied by Analogy in the Dutch Supreme Court
Written by Birgit van Houtert, Assistant Professor of Private International Law at Maastricht University
On 1 September 2023, the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention (HJC) entered into force. Currently, this Convention only applies in the relationship between EU-Member States and Ukraine. Uruguay has also ratified the HJC on 1 September 2023 (see status table). The value of the HJC has been criticised by Haimo Schack inter alia, for its limited scope of application. However, the HJC can be valuable even beyond its scope as this blog will illustrate by the ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court on 29 September 2023, ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1265.
Which Law Governs Subject Matter Arbitrability in International Commercial Disputes?
Written by Kamakshi Puri[1]
Arbitrability is a manifestation of public policy of a state. Each state under its national laws is empowered to restrict or limit the matters that can be referred to and resolved by arbitration. There is no international consensus on the matters that are arbitrable. Arbitrability is therefore one of the issues where contractual and jurisdictional natures of international commercial arbitration meet head on.
News
Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 1/2025: Abstracts
The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts“ (IPRax) features the following articles:
Announcement – Save the Date: Online Workshop on Cross-Border Protection of Cultural Property
Chinese Journal of Transnational Law will hold an online workshop on Cross-Border Protection of Cultural Property on 28 Feb 2025. All are welcome to attend. A Zoom link will be provided closer to the event.
Tentative Programme
Keynote Speakers
•Prof. Christa Roodt, University of Glasgow
•Prof. Zhengxin Huo, China University of Political Science and Law
Speakers and Presentations
•Restitution of Cultural Objects Unethically Acquired During the Colonial Era: The Intersection of Public and Private International Law
Andreas Giorgallis (PGR), University of Glasgow
•The Contribution of Postcolonial Theory to the Cross-Border Protection of Indigenous Cultural Heritage
Eleni Moustaira, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
•From Freedom to Restitution (With Special Focus on Central and Eastern Europe and the Lusophone Community)
Miroslaw Michal Sadowski, University of Strathclyde
•Restitution of Cultural Property in China: In Search of a New Paradigm for Cross-Border Cultural Property Claims
Ruida Chen, China University of Political Science and Law
•Forfeiture and Freezing Orders in Trans-border Cultural Property Litigation
Maggie Fleming Cacot
•Restitution of Stolen Foreign Cultural Property and Hurdles in Choice of Law
Yehya Badr, Yamamah University
•The Issue of Applicable Law in Disputes Arising from Violations of Private Law Regulations on Cultural Properties: The Case of Türkiye
Ekin Hacibekiroglu, Kadir Has University
•Evolving Models of Restitution
Evelien Campfens, University of Amsterdam
•Moving People, Shifting State Borders and the Return of Cultural Property: The Case of Poland
Andrzej Jakubowski, Instytut Nauk Prawnych, Polska Akademia Nauk,
We invite those interested in this important discussion to mark their calendars. More information will be provided soon.
Happy New Year from ConflictofLaws.net (now also on Bluesky)!
The editors of ConflictofLaws.net would like to wish you a year filled with happiness, health, and success, academically and otherwise.
2024 has been another great year for the blog, with close to one new post per day (bringing us to more than 5,500 posts in total) and record numbers of readers and subscribers. Our content, just like our readership, reflects the global scope of the blog, with popular posts including Saloni Khanderia & Shubh Jaiswal’s article on the application of the lex fori ‘by default’ in Indian courts, Mayela Celis’ note on Smith & Wesson v Mexico, Orji A Uka & Damilola Alabi’s contribution on service under Nigerian law, Yasmín Aguada & Laura Martina Jeifetz two-part piece on international judicial cooperation and technology in private international law, and Tobias Lutzi’s comment on the CJEU’s decision in Real Madrid.
In addition to our e-mail newsletter (which continues to be surprisingly popular), you can subscribe to our blog on LinkedIn, Twitter/X, and – from this year on – Bluesky.